Respondent, who was appearing in person, did not appear on 03.4.2006 and 29.8.2006.  Notice was issued for 29.4.2009.  On that day, a FAX message was received from the counsel for the respondent seeking a short adjournment.  Case was adjourned for today.  Office was directed to inform the respondent that if he does not appear on the next date of hearing, case shall be taken up and

-2-

disposed of.  A copy of the notice was sent to the respondent on 12.5.2009.  Respondent is not present today.  Ordered to be proceeded ex-parte.

          Complainant/respondent’s father late Veershettappa Patil had taken life insurance policy in the sum of Rs.1 Lac commencing w.e.f. 28.4.1993.  Proposal form was signed on 25.1.1994.  The insured died on 13.8.1995.  Respondent being the nominee filed an insurance claim with the petitioner which was repudiated on the ground that the deceased had suppressed the condition of his health; that he had failed to disclose that he was suffering from Diabetes Mellitus.  Respondent, thereafter, filed a complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay insured amount of Rs.1 Lac along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization, Rs.2000/- were awarded for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as costs.

          Petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order by observing that the petitioner had failed to produce any evidence to

-3-

show that the heart attack had been suffered by the insured due to the Diabetes. 

Admission Card of Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences, Punjagutta, Hyderabad records “Known -  DM+15 years.  The fact that the insured was suffering from DM i.e. Diabetes Mellitus was not mentioned by the insured in the proposal form.  The death took place within two years of taking of the policy.  It is well established by now of which a judicial notice can be taken that Diabetes Mellitus is a major cause for ‘Cardiac Arrest’.  The Admission Card itself shows that the insured was suffering from Diabetes Mellitus for the last 15 years.  He had taken the insurance policy in the year 1994 and died on 13.8.1995, i.e. within two years of taking of the policy.  To a specific question in the proposal form 111E as to whether he was suffering from Diabetes, the answer given was in the negative.  This clearly shows that the insured had withheld the fact that he was suffering from Diabetes Mellitus.

-4-

            For the reasons stated above, the order passed by the foras below is set aside.  The revision petition is allowed and the complaint is ordered to be dismissed.  No order as to costs.